This interesting look at our primate ancestors, the great and smaller apes today, and ourselves, combines various researches, some of which will be familiar, some more newly learnt. There are many graphs and charts, usually easy enough to understand, showing clear progressions. Time requirements and energy use is the main concept through the Neanderthals, the big-brained apes and bigger brained humans needing more food, their social structures, the typical village size being 150 people throughout history.
Some interesting factors are a look at monogamy and possible reasons for it - male protecting his offspring, male unable to cover enough ground to protect territories for more than one female, female selecting a fit male for food and protection etc. It seems that if a social group leaves the multi-male and multi-female shape, and either goes to harem or to monogamy, the monogamy is always a fixed end which cannot be returned from in that society. I was waiting for a look at bonobos but did not get it.
In spare time, primates can socially interact such as grooming and selecting mates. Baboons get a nod here as they forage easily, but a large group of any ape would need to be constantly on the move to keep supplied, so smaller groupings occur and in the extreme, the orang-utan, solitary foraging takes place. I didn't see Sapolsky's comment that baboons have eight hours a day in which to make one another's lives miserable, though earlier we did get his work reduced to the association between low status and stress. If an animal can't adapt its diet and can't forage enough to find food, or has to worry about predators, it can't reproduce fast enough to replace population. Chimps can cope with either lion or leopard but not both. The glum outlook given is that great apes, particularly the orang-utan will go extinct (in the wild) through climate change and human pressure.
Mary Leakey found, in 1978, a fossil set of footprints in volcanic ash. They show two adult people and a child. These have been dated to 3.6 m.y.a. so we know that humans walked upright in Tanzania at that time. By four m.y.a. there were various lineages of upright walkers around, some more successful than others. The book looks at the australopithecines and presents what we know of them, modelling their ecology and whether they were living like baboons or chimps. Why bipedalism? If your legs are longer than your arms it is a very efficient way of moving. It also gives you a better view and more cooling. The aquatic ape theory, not named here, is shrugged off with barely a sentence. We see that some communities lived in limestone caves in Africa which not only provided security but regulated temperature. Carbon-3 isotope plants, sedges and the like versus carbon-4 isotope plants, trees and shrubs, leave traces in the body so it is possible to reconstruct diets. We look at whether these hominids were monogamous or not. I was waiting for the contrast between the sperm of gorillas and chimps to be mentioned but it wasn't. Gorillas who get to mate are harem owners and see off other males, and their sperm apparently is full of junk chromosomes, damaged and useless. A small amount of the sperm is viable. By contrast almost all of a chimp's sperm is fit for purpose because a chimp has many male competitors. (Towards the end of the book the author mentions that chimps have bigger testes than gorillas.)
Climate shifts having separated out various species to various diets and ways of life, some survived and some died out over time. We move on to the more modern distribution and changes. The author says the Homo floresiensis (hobbit) surprised us by persisting until 12,000 years ago, but is just a small subspecies which survived because it was isolated on an island, and why it became small is an interesting question for another time. I can explain that islands force an animal species to become small, from ponies to rhinos. That's well proven. There are a few exceptions like the Komodo dragon, but they are the biggest predators with abundant food.
Fire is given as a probable answer to the demands of a bigger brain. From half a million years ago cooking fire sites are well distributed on the Old World continents. I have read in 'More: Population, Nature, and What Women Want' by Robert Engelman that a bigger brain forced babies to be born facing back from the mother instead of towards her chest, requiring a midwife and so forcing group living. I didn't see that mentioned here. Big brains have the advantage of allowing a species to adapt to cope with shifting environments, and in the Rift Valley lakes sometimes dried up, while the Sahara turned to desert; in the Eurasian continent the light levels were lower and the Ice Age advanced. We're told that monkeys and apes sleep up trees or cliff faces but humans don't climb cliffs well enough; I've seen the theory elsewhere that bipedalism evolved in hominids which particularly lived on cliffs as opposed to swinging under tree limbs (brachiation). We get the Denisovans mentioned, but so far we only know of them from a single cave of bones. They were cousins of Neanderthals, further east in Siberia. Here we get a good map showing distribution of archaic human sites and of the Neanderthals, which includes a point in west England. I'm presuming they got there by walking across Doggerland during the Ice Age. Social bonding while eating communally, especially over cooked food, is suggested.
We're told that people at higher latitudes tend to have bigger eye sockets and visual processing parts of the brain than people in tropics, even today. This fits with Neanderthals doing well. They may have kept modern humans back from Europe for a long time. But 700,000 years ago the Out of Africa event saw humans on the move. The genetic lineages of all humans are explained, with only one family of four having moved out of Africa. Fire added time to the day, shortening night and allowing for tool making and socialising. With language, laughter and dance, the campfire became a vital part of society. That's convincing as we still enjoy a campfire sing-song today. We learn about speech, symbolism and art. We have altered bones to apes for speaking and hearing.
I was sobered to read of a Palaeolithic burial near today's Moscow in which two children were found, who had been clothed with around 5,000 pierced beads on each, and 250 fox teeth in a belt on one, an ivory pin on the other. Other grave goods were placed with them. This grave was 200,000 years old.
Goodness me, doesn't DNA tell you interesting things about our lice. And about conflict or bride theft and fathering of children. Worth a read. Then we move on to art, language and how it established mate rights, even to how we name our kin. The real issue, quoting Austen Hughes, is not who is related to us in the past, but who shares in interest in future generations with us. Religion, involving animal spirits, and trances follow.
Settlements, farming, defensive walls and warfare await near the end of the book. Feasting and drinking with kin are suggested as a way of overcoming population stresses. Then we get the jokingly named 'cads versus dads' look at male behaviour in social groups and whether grandmothers are valuable as child-minders. Seems very modern.
There are 50 pages of notes and references followed by an index of 15 pages. Needed, I have to say, for so many theories, facts and discussions are packed into this book. I still have not found an all-encompassing book on our evolution, comparison with apes and other early humans, and prehistory, as will be apparent, but Human Evolution crams in a great deal and looks at most of the modern theories and findings. If you have not read much on the topic, you'll learn a lot, and anyone will dip in and find something new or a new model of ancestral behaviours. This is easy enough to follow for non-scientists, well worth a read and deserves a place on the shelf for further reference.
I downloaded an ARC from Net Galley for an unbiased review.